Master Index of Archived Threads


Fernando Martinez & Wilmer Flores

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 01 2008 11:14 AM

F-Mart and, um, Wil-Flo made Baseball Prospectus' [url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7738]Monday Ten Pack[/url] because they're en fuego! ]Wilmer Flores, SS, Rookie-Level Kingsport (Mets) It’s remarkable to consider that Flores doesn’t turn 17 years old until August. If he was an American, we’d be taking about him as a young talent to keep your eye on for the 2009 draft, but instead, he’s eating up his first taste of pro pitching. Ranked as the fourth best prospect in the Mets system after signing last season for $700,000, Flores went deep on Friday and Saturday, and while he was held to just a single on Sunday, he’s batting a healthy .386/.410/.632 in his first 13 games. He’ll eventually grow out of the position, but most international scouts thought the bat would play anywhere, and that’s looking to be spot on. ]Fernando Martinez, OF, Double-A Binghamton (Mets) Martinez continues to be a source of frustration. There are still scouts out there who see MVP potential here, yet he just can’t stay healthy. Just 19 and spending his second year in Double-A, Martinez seems to finally be hitting his stride, going 15-for-38 (.395) in a 10-game stretch before pulling his right hamstring, which put him on the shelf for six weeks. The top prospect in the system returned over the weekend and picked up where he left off, going 7-for-12 with two doubles and a home run in a three-game set with Connecticut, and raising his season averages to .302/.339/.450. The talent has always been there, and the question now is whether or not it can stay on the field and continue to blossom.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 01 2008 11:23 AM

My prediction: within four weeks, somebody will say it's time to promote Flores to New York, because he can't be any worse than what we have now.

Mex17 Jul 01 2008 11:38 AM

So where foes Flores project to play if not ss?

AG/DC Jul 01 2008 11:50 AM

I guess they'll cross that bridge when they come to it. But I'm guessing a 6'3" 17-year-old suggest a future thirdbaseman. The easy answer is anywhere.

attgig Jul 01 2008 11:51 AM

let's kick castillo out and put him at 2b.

attgig Jul 01 2008 11:52 AM

AG/DC wrote: I guess they'll cross that bridge when they come to it. But I'm guessing a 6'3" 17-year-old suggest a future thirdbaseman. The easy answer is anywhere. or dfa Delgado, and promote him to the majors cuz he can't be any worse than we have now.

AG/DC Jul 01 2008 11:54 AM

Well that was within four weeks.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 01 2008 12:04 PM

I should have said "four hours."

attgig Jul 01 2008 12:18 PM

I thought I'd kill the suspense and put it up there.

MFS62 Jul 01 2008 09:19 PM

I'm giddy about the fact that Wilmer collected his first pro base on balls in the second game of tonight's double header. Learn that plate discipline, kid. His OPS is now over 1.000 I'm kvelling. Later

Frayed Knot Jul 17 2008 02:56 PM

Young'un Wilmer Flores continues to rock at K-Port. Kingsport (Mets) shortstop Wilmer Flores put together his tenth multi-hit game of the year on Tuesday night. Flores’ 4-for-5 night in a 5-4 loss to Johnson City (Cardinals) came the night after he saw his batting average dip to a season-low .324 after a 1-for-4 night. The 16-year-old came into the season regarded as one of the league’s top prospects, but his performance thus far has put him head and shoulders above the leagues’ other prospects. Nearly four years younger than the average age in the Appalachian League, Flores has torched the league’s pitching, batting .346/.388/.589. Still a VERY long way away obviously, but it's not often you get a guy who shows he can succeed against pro pitching nearly a full year before he'd even be eligible for the draft were he an American HS kid.

MFS62 Jul 17 2008 02:59 PM

I was 16 years old when I graduated high school, and for a brief part of my freshman year in college. I believe you can be drafted upon graduation from high school, no matter what your age. Is that correct? Or is there a minumum age? EDIT: Looks like I'm right. Check "eligibility" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Draft#Eligibility Later

AG/DC Jul 17 2008 03:09 PM

Flores wasn't drafted. As a Venezuelan, he's a free agent. You have to be 17 to be drafted. Foreign players are signed at 16, but teams can stash them at academies when they are younger than that.

attgig Jul 17 2008 03:17 PM

why can't foreign players be in the draft? It seems odd to me that baseball is the only major sport where foreigners can't get drafted, but it's up to whoever team spends the most money overseas that can get him.

MFS62 Jul 17 2008 03:39 PM

="AG/DC"]Flores wasn't drafted. As a Venezuelan, he's a free agent. You have to be 17 to be drafted. Foreign players are signed at 16, but teams can stash them at academies when they are younger than that. Agree about Flores being signed rather than drafted. But I was responding to the comment about him playing a year before American High Schoolers. In the link I posted, it talks about draft eligibility after graduating from high school and never attending college. There is no mention of a specific minimum age. If that is correct, what would stop a 16 year old high school graduate from being drafted? I'm sure a smart agent could fight that on the grounds of age discrimination. Can you provide a link that says there is a minimum age? to be drafted? Later

Frayed Knot Jul 17 2008 06:12 PM

]If that is correct, what would stop a 16 year old high school graduate from being drafted? I'm sure a smart agent could fight that on the grounds of age discrimination. The whole point of my statement was to point out that if Flores was the age of a normal American HS kid he wouldn't even be entering the draft until next June at which point he'll have approx one + change years of pro ball under his belt plus another few months on top of that before turning 18. And sports leagues (particularly the NFL) have clearly demonstrated the ability to set a draft age limit and make it stick. Even if they don't specifically tie it to age the net effect does exactly that. Of course the NFL seems to be able to get away with anything but courts have consistantly backed them up including fairly recently.

Frayed Knot Jul 17 2008 06:35 PM

attgig wrote: why can't foreign players be in the draft? It seems odd to me that baseball is the only major sport where foreigners can't get drafted, but it's up to whoever team spends the most money overseas that can get him. The simple answer is that it's that way because that's the way MLB set it up. U.S. and Canadian players were always subject to the draft - and then Puerto Ricans were added around 1990. The idea behind it is that in these Caribbean countries, where the sport isn't structured into same sort of organized youth and scholastic leagues like it is here, the best way to find talent is to send scouts down there to turn over every rock they can find and grab oodles of it for at a fairly low cost per player. And even though there are the occasional standouts who show enough promise even at a very young age to create a bidding war amongst teams, the smaller-budget clubs are generally willing to let the big boys fight it out over them while they continue to look for future diamonds in the sandlots. Proposes for an int'l draft are usually made with smaller market teams in mind except that they're the ones most likely to balk. They generally prefer to keep the current system which is the one place where they feel a bit of entrepenurial moxie allows them to compete against the checkbook boys.

MFS62 Jul 18 2008 05:40 AM

Thank you. Later

Frayed Knot Sep 08 2008 06:21 PM

Baseball America's Jim Callis was in an on-line Q&A (espn insider stuff) last week and, in his own words, "caused a furor in the Mets blogosphere" when he answered a question as to who he liked as NYM's No. 1 prospect by going with Rookie ball shortstop Wilmer Flores over Double-A outfielder Fernando Martinez. It was during a quick question/quick answer format where he didn't have a chance to explain his thinking. Today in BA he does: Both Flores and Martinez have interesting bats, and the big difference between the two is that there's more to Flores' game than just his offense. He has a chance to play a premium position (currently a SS) and at worse will be a third baseman, while Martinez will be a left fielder. -- he's not the first to opine that Fartinez isn't looking like a CF While Martinez has been pushed aggressively by the Mets and consistently has been very young for his leagues, he hasn't been overwhelmingly impressive since a 45-game stint in low Class A as a 17-year-old at the beginning of 2006. Flores will be 17 when he heads to low Class A next year, and I think he'll outperform Martinez. It's still very early in Flores' career, but I've had scouts compare his ceiling to Miguel Cabrera's.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 08 2008 06:39 PM

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not getting a "superstar" vibe from Martinez. He may very well be a nice player with a nice career, but I think he's being over-hyped. Even more than usual.

AG/DC Sep 08 2008 08:29 PM

Well, now we have guys congratuating themselves for not overpraising him, as if he discovered Flores or is the first to look at Fartinez's last two seasons or something. It's all about claiming you were the first. Jumping someone else's train.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 08 2008 09:10 PM

Is THAT what I'm doing? I don't think so. I'm just being skeptical.

AG/DC Sep 08 2008 09:21 PM

No, that's what Callis is doing. Claims he "caused a furor in the Mets blogosphere." I happen to live in Metly cyberspace (right next door, we share a park) and I didn't even see anything.

Frayed Knot Sep 08 2008 09:46 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not getting a "superstar" vibe from Martinez. He may very well be a nice player with a nice career, but I think he's being over-hyped. Even more than usual. Don't think he ever was billed as a superstar, merely one with a high-ceiling when he was still very young and a long way from the majors. Bet against 'superstar' with just about any prospect and you'll be right 90+% of the time. ]Callis ... claims he "caused a furor in the Mets blogosphere." Well, sites that discuss prospects tend to hash out comments like that pretty good. Did Callis say it just to stir up shit? I dunno. He was asked a question, answered it, and then adressed some of the feedback to that answer more thoroughly and gave his reasons why. It's not like he's some lone blogger trying to make a name by claiming to be the first to tout some unknown prospect.

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 05:39 AM

Not at all. That's my point. He's flattering himself by claiming credit for a non-existent furor by busting up a cherished consensus of prospect-defending Mets fans that also doesn't exist. I'm certain there is a bloc of Met fans who will whine about beng misled if/when Fartinez turns out to be merely good, but they (1) problably mostly use the internet for porn, and (2) will mostly be disappointed about not getting a return on investments in (a) stockpiled rookie cards and (b) speculative rotisserie drafts.

Frayed Knot Sep 09 2008 07:33 AM

I'm really at a loss to see what has you so exorcised here. It's reasonable to assume that if a furor falls in the internet and Edgy's not there to read it it still makes a noise. Now the definition of "furor" is a bit fungible I suppose. But I do know that John Sickels' site had a rather spirited thread hashing over Callis's comments and any of the these prospect guys will tell you that the surest way start a controvery is to put out an opinion - any opinion - on Met, Yanqui or Red Sox prospects because not only do fans of those teams tend to be overly protective of their own but they're in such competition with each other that mere mentions of the other teams' guys starts the "BIAS" and "KOOLAID DRINKER" claims flying back and forth. Callis first put out his opinion in a quick-answer format to a reader's question; then read and/or heard about various places questioning both his opinion and reasons behind it; and finally explained his thinking during his weekly prospect column. In doing so he neither trashed Martinez nor claimed to be touting Flores as the next superstar. He's merely saying who he'd put on the top of the Met prospect list as of 9/08.

seawolf17 Sep 09 2008 07:38 AM

Isn't Wilmer Flores the kid from That 70s Show who hosts "Yo Mamma" now on MTV? Funny dude.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 09 2008 07:42 AM

I also think that the expectations for Martinez are very high. Remember, he was said to have been "untouchable" when the Twins wanted him for Johan Santana. If he's too good to trade for a two-time Cy Young winner who's still in his prime, you have to figure that people are going to be expecting a lot from him.

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 07:46 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm really at a loss to see what has you so exorcised here. And I'm at a loss to as to what makes you think I'm exorcised.

willpie Sep 09 2008 08:46 AM

="Benjamin Grimm"]I also think that the expectations for Martinez are very high. Remember, he was said to have been "untouchable" when the Twins wanted him for Johan Santana. Paging Mr. Escobar... Mr. Alex Escobar, please pick up a white courtesy telephone.

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 09:22 AM

There we go. Is there a place between a superstar and a washout? Is anything less than a Hall of Fame career a washout once you've been ranked number-one in the Mets system? Look, furor.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 09 2008 09:36 AM

AG/DC wrote: Is there a place between a superstar and a washout? Is anything less than a Hall of Fame career a washout once you've been ranked number-one in the Mets system? Well, you don't have to be a Hall of Famer to avoid being a washout. (I don't think!) Was Edgardo Alfonzo ever considered a Number One? Or was he more of a pleasant surprise? (I seem to remember the latter.) Gregg Jefferies, who had a nice career: Washout. Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden: not Hall-of-Famers, but not washouts. But when you look at how many fans wanted to give up on Jose Reyes when he was only 23 or 24, I do have to question the rationality of many of the fans who rush to judgment. I really do think that Fernando Martinez, if he comes up with the Mets, will face some undeserved heat from the fans.

Valadius Sep 09 2008 12:33 PM

Hell, David Wright didn't face anywhere near the expectations that Fernando Martinez is facing. As I recall it, we were so focused on whether or not Jose Reyes was going to live up to his hype (which he has, for the most part) that when David came along, the reaction seemed to be, "Oh, look, we've got another one!"

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 09 2008 12:34 PM

I had wood for David Wright about a year before he arrived as a matter of fact.

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 12:35 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 09 2008 12:42 PM

Valadius wrote: Hell, David Wright didn't face anywhere near the expectations that Fernando Martinez is facing. I'm calling bullshit. OE: Also, it's reasonable to conclude that Wilmer's displacement of Fernando in some rankings might be more (or as much) related to Wilmer's ascendancy as to Fernando's slipping.

Valadius Sep 09 2008 12:40 PM

Come on. David's our last great home-grown hitter, and when he came up, he had Reyes to compete with in terms of who was going to be better. F-Mart's had the super-hitting-prospect label all to himself, pretty much, for the last few years. Escobar is a great example to compare him to. No one else stood out when he was being touted. That's what Martinez has been dealing with for the most part. It wasn't like that for David Wright.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 09 2008 12:44 PM

That's nonsense. Everyone familiar with analysis and projections, etc. couldn't help but know Wright stood a better chance than Reyes of being good, and at any rate was a completely different kind of player than Reyes and would garner different attention than he would. Reyes may have been more exciting to watch play but Wright was every bit as exciting, if not more, to arrive.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 09 2008 12:46 PM

="AG/DC"] Valadius wrote: OE: Also, it's reasonable to conclude that Wilmer's displacement of Fernando in some rankings might be more (or as much) related to Wilmer's ascendancy as to Fernando's slipping. That's how it works, for the most part. AG/DC Sep 09 2008 12:48 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 09 2008 12:50 PM Valadius wrote: Come on. David's our last great home-grown hitter, and when he came up, Most recent, maybe. Not, I hope, the last. Valadius wrote: ...he had Reyes to compete with in terms of who was going to be better. F-Mart's had the super-hitting-prospect label all to himself, pretty much, for the last few years. Escobar is a great example to compare him to. No one else stood out when he was being touted. That's what Martinez has been dealing with for the most part. It wasn't like that for David Wright. I don't agree that expectations (whatever that means and however they are measured) are hooked to how alone you are in the system. And as far as being alone "for the last few years," Martinez has come along behind Lastings Milledge and Carlos Gomez, who were both similarly promoted aggressively to levels that were huge challenges to players their age, and it was something of a surprise when he surpassed those two (only this past off-season) in the esteem of rankers (some, not all, I think), as well as the Mets. He's been alone (in that sense) a little over seven months. metirish Sep 09 2008 12:49 PM I remember just being excited that Wright was up at all , those were some dark times for a Met fan.I recall Howe handling the whole thing rather well. duan Sep 09 2008 02:04 PM AG/DC wrote: There we go. Is there a place between a superstar and a washout? Is anything less than a Hall of Fame career a washout once you've been ranked number-one in the Mets system? Look, furor. I refuse to think anywhere with signature lines of women in (a very small amount) of underwear is worth of any time. Benjamin Grimm Sep 09 2008 02:08 PM Yikes. There's an example of the slippery slope you're on once you allow graphics and fonts in signature lines. I'm so glad we don't do that here. AG/DC Sep 09 2008 02:09 PM Sure, but how do you feel about places with avatars with Morrissey showing off his cowbones? Benjamin Grimm Sep 09 2008 02:13 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 09 2008 02:15 PM I do think we've stepped gingerly over the shark with avatars. If it were up to me, I'd impose a maximum height (to go with the maximum width). This is about as big as an avatar should be: themetfairy Sep 09 2008 02:14 PM AG/DC wrote: Sure, but how do you feel about places with avatars with Morrissey showing off his cowbones? I keep thinking that's what Duan looks like. duan Sep 10 2008 05:06 PM i've tamed my avatar a little.